>Well for that comparison to work, we'd also have to assume Microsoft disabled installing unsigned software as well.

Look no further than Xbox Store and how well you can run unsigned code on it.

Sure, you can buy a physical game copy, but there are two issues with that:

1. Diskless versions of consoles are becoming more commonplace, thus removing that option.

2. If you buy retail, it is still a cut to Microsoft, just a smaller one. Because you pay the same price for physical as you do for digital, except instead of the entire cut going to MSFT, a part of it goes to the retail establishment selling it.

And before someone says "well, this is a gaming console, not a phone/computing device", I will say that it has apps (youtube/streaming services/etc.), it has a web browser, and plenty other functionality not related to games.

So I am struggling to draw a hard line here as to why it is ok on Xbox, but not ok on smartphones (as long as there are commonplace alternatives available that would prevent it from being a monopoly, and Android is one such commonplace alternative).

EDIT: I stand corrected, apparently you can run unsigned code officially on new Xbox consoles, and I should have picked a better example. Thanks to people in the comments correcting me on this, as I genuinely had no idea you could run unsigned code on Xbox. Despite this, I believe my general argument still stands though, because the same situation with transaction cuts is happening with Sony's and Nintendo's consoles, except you cannot run unsigned code on those.

You can actually run unsigned code on a retail Xbox One console officially. There are ports of RetroArch to it and all.

I suspect this permissiveness was a major reason it was never hacked throughout its full 8 year lifespan - homebrewers didn't need to enable piracy to do what they wanted.

My understanding was that you can run non-retail code on xbox the same way you can on an iphone - except:

- xbox always charges you for the privilege while apple has a free developer tier. The free tier is limited (no distribution of apps you wrote, app will time out and have to be reinstalled).

- xbox requires you to put the console in developer mode, which eliminates your ability to play commercial games. Apple does not have this feature (although some commercial apps do attempt to detect things like jailbreaks themselves).

So while the xbox developer mode might give homebrewers more capabilities than a developer account by apple, it doesn't affect revenue sharing for companies who want to make a profit off of their work.

If installing with a developer account is official, then similarly you can run unsigned code on iOS officially. The process is quite similar to xbox.

Edit: can't reply further, but this can indeed be done for free (assuming you have access to a mac or a mac vm). The paid developer account is only for publishing to the app store, you can do almost everything with a free developer account.

For free?

Gaming console hardware is heavily subsidized by those cuts. Apple hardware, in contrast, is sold with profit.

While this is true - with the caveat that the goal for console manufacturers _is_ to make a profit as they optimize and ramp up production - people generally leave out the part where they make a compelling argument based on this situation.

For instance, the primary complaint Epic has is not that Apple gives preferential treatment and deals to some companies - it is that they WOULDN'T give one to Epic. https://www.imore.com/epic-games-would-have-accepted-special...

> Gaming console hardware is heavily subsidized by those cuts.

I was about to reply with skepticism, but after looking online I found the following and have to reconsider my doubts. This Apple vs Epic trial truly is a wondrous thing

https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/6/22422691/microsoft-xbox-co...

The problem with that though is that legally, there is no difference between whether hardware is sold at profit or not as to whether you can have an App Distribution monopoly.

> And before someone says "well, this is a gaming console, not a phone/computing device", I will say that it has apps (youtube/streaming services/etc.), it has a web browser, and plenty other functionality not related to games.

How much is the cut for those functionalities for MS?

You are welcome to look at the leaked documents[0], and they have a nice table showing cuts for all kinds of transactions on Microsoft Store.

Looks like currently it is 30% for games, 15% for apps and app subscriptions, and they were exploring reducing the game-related cuts down to 12%. Microsoft spokesperson's reply to those leaked documents was "we have no plans to change the revenue share for console games at this time".

Though I am not sure how much the 15% (microsoft cut for app-related purchases) vs. 30% (apple's cut, or 15% if the devs haven't made over $1 million in revenue this year or the year before) difference matters here, because I am struggling to figure out how the 15% vs. 30% difference makes one a monopoly. If that's the argument, then what's the magic number threshold that makes you a monopoly after you cross it? And how does Apple's reduced cut of 15% for devs with under $1mil in revenue play into that?

0. https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/2/22415712/microsoft-xbox-st...

> If that's the argument, then what's the magic number threshold that makes you a monopoly after you cross it?

Let's assume a very generous 5% for payment costs (credit cards are capped at 0.3% in the EU, but US cards with their rewards can run up to 5% in merchant fees, and god knows about the cost of doing business in other markets), another very generous 5% for CDN/hosting (data traffic isn't cheap, modern games easily run into triple digit GB sizes, and gamers are notorious for bringing down even the largest CDNs on delivery dates), and another 5% for profit and other costs (development), and you end up at something like 15%.

Anything above that is ripping people off.

Cool, so does that mean that Sony/MSFT/Nintendo should be sued for anti-monopoly here too, given that they take over 15% for game-related transactions?

Because my question was less about "how things should ideally be", and more about "how much legal scrutiny can this legal case withstand".

> more about "how much legal scrutiny can this legal case withstand".

That is entirely a question of jurisdiction. The US is famous for its deregulation, usury only covers loan interest rates - whereas in Germany the limit in §138 BGB is something that is "obviously not in a fair relationship between the payment and the value received for it", plus our whole anti-trust regulation.

The German Bundeskartellamt is already prosecuting the big tech companies, the EU anti-trust agencies also have woken up from their slumber... we will see.

>US cards with their rewards can run up to 5% in merchant fees

Americans so much love freedom for companies to fleece them off.

The insidious thing that people never get taught or notice is that while, yes, you get 5% cashback as a customer, the store will eventually raise its prices by 5% to make up the higher CC fees.

Which still works out in favor of the debtor, because: (a) they reap the benefit in the meantime; and (b) rising prices benefit retail workers at the expense of those living off savings and investments

> they reap the benefit in the meantime

Yeah, but when the CC reward gets cancelled the store still will charge the old prices.

> rising prices benefit retail workers at the expense of those living off savings and investments

That assumes that retail will distribute extra profits to its employees... which many aren't known for, Walmart and McDonald's are infamous for paying such poor wages that its employees are entitled to food stamps ffs (https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/19/walmart-and-mcdonalds-among-...).

Maybe, just maybe, the situation will change a bit now that corona has entirely uprooted labor markets, but even then it's a smoke debate - 15$/h is the lowest of the low, even adjusting for inflation would lead to a higher minimum wage!

> 15$/h is the lowest of the low, even adjusting for inflation would lead to a higher minimum wage

Adjusting the 1938 original minimum wage for inflation (cumulatively, 1794%) would lead to a 2021 minimum wage of $4.73/hr.

Adjusting the 1945 minimum wage for inflation (cumulatively, 1383.6%) would lead to a 2021 minimum wage of $5.93/hr.

Adjusting the 1950 minimum wage for inflation (cumulatively, 1008.1%) would lead to a 2021 minimum wage of $8.31/hr.

Adjusting the 1965 minimum wage for inflation (cumulatively, 747.8%) would lead to a 2021 minimum wage of $10.60/hr.

Adjusting the 1975 minimum wage for inflation (cumulatively, 396.4%) would lead to a 2021 minimum wage of $10.42/hr.

Adjusting the 1980 minimum wage for inflation (cumulatively, 224.1%) would lead to a 2021 minimum wage of $10.05/hr.

Adjusting the 1990 minimum wage for inflation (cumulatively, 104.3%) would lead to a 2021 minimum wage of $7.76/hr.

Adjusting the 1997 minimum wage for inflation (cumulatively, 66.4%) would lead to a 2021 minimum wage of $8.57/hr.

Adjusting the 2008 minimum wage for inflation (cumulatively, 24.0%) would lead to a 2021 minimum wage of $8.12/hr.

It appears that inflation of the dollar has not happened at quite the same pace as inflation of socialist demands. *shrug*

You actually can run unsigned code on the Xbox. It's a bit of a hassle to get the developer account working, but completely possible. It's how Retroarch made a native Xbox app.

If developer accounts count, then you can run unsigned / self signed code on iOS as well. That's how Dash for iOS was distributed for some time when it was banned from the App store: https://github.com/Kapeli/Dash-iOS